A bit of history

Concerning the sculpture, the one in the Louvre, her creation is situated a bit before the first century BCE. At the most, it was established that it wasn't a work of Praxiteles but of a certain Alexandros, native of Antioch. His name was engraved in part of the pedestal that is now lost.

It was discovered in 1820 during the excavations of a field on the island of Milos. The two main elements, the torso and the drape, were in detached and not broken, following the antique method in which several blocks of marble were assembled before carving. Furthermore, fragments had been found: from which the remembrance of the left arm holding an apple was retained. Alas all were lost during long transport journeys.  Anyhow, the arms were already missing!

Like the Louvre had acquired the pieces, with difficulty to say the least, it proceeded to have the two marble parts assembled. The reconstitution of the Venus de Milo, as it was from then on known as, was never attempted. The statue, over two meters high, was becoming one of Museum's emblematic figures while , in the meantime, The Louvre had to retore to Italy many glorious treasures.

First observations

The base could be a conundrum. On the replica, it isn't broken in a bevel like the original but instead extended vertically to where the garment falls.

While the right foot is resting on the base within a normal margin, the left foot – the missing one – seems to have been designed to lean on… vacuum, thereby making worse the effect of an unusual asymmetry.

When the lines of the base are extended, a trapezoid is obtained. Its enlargement leaves the required lateral space around the left foot (only the toes would stick out from the frontal edge), but moreover frees up the implantation of the hermaic pillar, dully demonstrated by Debay's drawing.

In this manner would the natural balance be restored, as it was retracted in the reproduction. Should one be reminded that the missing piece was lost in the Louvre itself? A way of looking past the aggravating details…

We will also notice on the next page that the two parts were separated voluntarily by quarryman hitting the statue with a mace and therefore it was far from being caused by accident.

A destruction process probably interrupted by some unforeseen event, the pieces seem to have been hastily buried under a pile of ruble, just like they were discovered in 1820.

. The two blocks       

From the front and back, the horizontality of junction line between the two marble blocks is discernable.

. The back

There is no doubt that the piece was leaning back against a wall, perhaps even included in a niche. As proof, the negligence rendered in the back drape, reduced to the basic repetition of parallel and equidistant folds. Furthermore, no efforts were made to dissimulate the consolidation bossage adjacent to the right foot's rear

The original

Exemple of  hermaic pillar

The commercial copy of The Louvre

The point of impact – burst pieces, the edges of the two disjoint blocks are massacred.

Here, the pieces assembled in the Louvre in 1921 left untouched without any restoration attempts -a wise precaution.

Unfortunately, the commercial reproduction was consented to a fanciful filling.

To further the research, the drape had to be removed. Chisel and mallet in hand, I began the nude exposure by following the hips' curves and methodically link them to the body's contact points.

It became clear than the Greek sculptor had compressed the thickness of the legs by tightening them in the folds' creases to create the illusion that they were thinner and longer. It however came with a surprise that a fair piece of the left buttock (shown below) was missing. This time the artist isn't blameable for that – the responsibility lies in Reproduction defects.

To the left, the incomplete buttock

The internal compression of the drapes'folds, clearly visible.

Schematized stages of discovery and reconstruction

This experience brought light to some curious disparities:

The breasts, small and high planted, are those of a very young girl and are linked to bodybuilder abs and matron hips.

The feet (if we refer to the one that is intact) are incongruous to all Statuary compliances as they are one and a half times longer than the face.

The volume of the head is very inferior to the standard 1/7th body ratio, probably to give the Goddess a prestigious enhanced height. It is doubtable that 180 cm-tall “top models” had enchanted the shores of the Mediterranean two thousand years ago…

Naked Venus

Have you seen her like this?

Restoration trial

Reworking on a moulded proof of the initial reproduction, I patiently undertook the repair of the cracks suffered in the drapes as well as the evacuation of the moulders' impetuous fillings. My biggest concern was to abide by Alexandros' style as much as possible.

I redid the foot and the beginning of a left arm, conforming to Anatomy and Debay's drawing from 1821.

Surprisingly, the drape had lost some of its romanticism once the damages sustained to the marble were removed.

The accidental or iconoclastic mutilations have prominently been a godsend to many antic works. Once “evacuated”, the sometimes-anecdotal significances no longer obstruct the timeless perception of the best Plastic in Sculptures.

Only thing left to do was to try finding the lost gesture of the Most Famous Armless Goddess. .

Arms: a difficult transplant

Many experts have brought forth contradictory and often unrealistic – not to say far-fetched– hypotheses that would be tedious to enumerate here.

In regard to the right arm (the one that is cut straight), the most common opinion is that it was holding the peplos at the opposite hip level… or rather give a hint of the gesture as there is absolutely no trace of fingers on the drape. It is in fact knotted well enough for it to stay still.

Apropos of the left arm, it is easy to determine its orientation as the start of the pectoral and deltoid are perfectly visible, albeit paradoxically being broken at the shoulder. Debay's drawing, realised before the umpteenth transport that cracked it, is anatomically correct.

I made a live model embody several attitudes, but only one satisfied me: the left arm holding the fabled apple and the right arm following the flow of the Goddess' gesture, pointing out her trophy to the witnesses upon whom her eyes lay.

In any case, the two arms can each unmistakeably be extended to the bend of the elbow. Beyond that point, things get complicated as neither the flexion angle, nor the direction of the coupled radius-ulna are known. The numerous combinations of the latter make the forearms' gesture stochastic.  

FLECTION

ROTATION

ROTATION

A complete reconstitution would require the pedestal to be lengthened and raised on the left side, as Debay illustrated. Nonetheless, recreating the hermaic pilar that was embedded in it would have been pure fancy with the lack of reference documents.

My reconstitution endeavour

I therefore contented myself with a drawing.

  VENUS  DE  MILO

REVISITED  BY

LE  NANTEC

A project

Might as well say it straight up: I don't have a pronounced liking for the Venus de Milo. Despite my goodwill, I see no feminine appeal in her… except for her small adolescent breasts that are alas not in harmony with the rest of her mass.

This is precisely what piqued my curiosity and led me to an “anatomical dismantling” of the legendary masterpiece.

After numerous drawings, I resolved to conduct my research in three dimensions.

The “document”

To insure a perfect objectivity, I thought of acquiring the most accurate reproduction at the Louvre. Unfortunately, today's editions in resin do not exceed 50cm.

That's when I had the luck of coming across an old plaster edition in half scale, conserving the original “seam” marks left by the good old multiple-piece moulds, before the usage of elastomers' suppleness.

Little drawback: to facilitate the opening of the mould, the workers of the Louvre had carried out finishifngs that were often risky. After careful verifications, I was convinced that the piece was altogether in accordance with the original. I thereon felt capacitated to pursue my work.

Brief mythological summary

One may recall that Aphrodite the Greek became Venus in Rome, however one may be less cognizant of the secondary role she henceforth had to content herself with.  The competition between divine starlets was rough as they shamelessly appropriated each other's postures and powers.

For the record, the cult of Aphrodite was of Phoenician origin and it was through Cyprus  (and of course Kythira) that she won the Greeks' fervour. She was then solely a Fertility goddess (long before she became a goddess of Love) – a noted hetaera who inspired all lust and reigned over the Realm of Senses, whether it be the God's or simple mortals'…  Not that she hadn't already tried to encroach herself upon the Great Athena's prerogatives!

Zeus himself had warned her about it as she sat on his lap, “Lovely child, warfare matters haven't been attributed to you: centre yourself around the sweets of the Hymen.”

Regarding her mythical origins, they were not lacking drollery. After Cronus had emasculated his own father and thrown the virile fragments in the sea, emitting a foam (aphros) from which the anadyomene (literally “rising from the sea”) goddess was born.

Let's spare the reader of the multiple episodes of beautiful Aphrodite's amorous life and retain only one: the Judgement of Paris, in which the apple of discord was allotted to our heroine after she revealed her luscious intimacy, rather than to Hera or Athena. We'll get a chance to tackle the subject again later.

Undressing the Venus de Milo

Scroll down

Scroll down

Scroll down

Scroll down

Scroll down

Scroll down

Scroll down

Scroll down